Your second point is right on. That's exactly how I feel about Casey - I will vote for him in November, but I won't do a damn thing else outside of that. Of course, as per my previous diary, I still think there's a fair chance Casey will lose this race somehow.

"If Lamont does better in Connecticut, then that is because the situation for progressives in Connecticut is better for progressives than it is in Pennsylvania."

That and the fact that Lamont is much more credible (ie very wealthy) than Pennacchio or Sandals.

That is simply a very sound and well-reasoned argument, Chris, and that is one of the main reasons I have come to admire your political philosophy so much. Thanks!

I question the premise here -- other than abortion (which is a much more complicated issue than the language of "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" describes) what about Casey makes him "more conservative" than Lieberman?

This is very well put. As angry as I tend to get about the candidates the dem party chooses to run in the general elections, (Kerry being one of the BEST examples ever), I go ahead and pull the lever for the dems every time because I know I can choose to work within the system to change the people who get selected.

Sometimes you have to hold your nose when you touch "VOTE."

Your point's one and two are resource allocation, and are spot on. We progressives have limited resources; we must target these resources carefully. This is why I'm supporting Lamont with my hard earned money. I agree we have a moral duty to push the party into the progressive sphere.

Your third point is much more transient however. While many "liberal" advocacy groups are indeed worth supporting, there is a roll of the dice here. This is evident from the Sierra Club's and NARAL's recent endorsements. No real clear path of progressivism. With limited resources, our weeding is harder than ever (and must be more careful than ever).

I would like to add a clear brand of progressives.  I know Chris, you have argued that we have clear choices as progressives and we should not pander to the soft middle third. But I really think this is a definition question. Conservatives vote against, Independents vote for and against, Progressives vote for. This is, by and large, a truth that must be addressed. I look forward to Texeira's and Halpin's upcoming article in the American Prospect. We must have a platform to vote FOR in November.

Also, Santorum isn't hideously unpopular. His approval is still 39%, and no, not any Democrat could beat him. Did you see any of the Santorum vs. Pennacchio polls?

Casey may not be the most liberal choice, but he is probably the strongest if we're going by polls. Rendell would have had a tough battle. Hoeffel would have been a slight underdog. Even Hafer would have had a tough fight ahead. Casey however has been leading for over a year now. That doesn't mean he's a shoo-in, but it makes Pennsylvania a strong possibility for a pickup instead of a really tough slog like Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, New Jersey...

Comments of Casey Bashers:

"I will not vote for Bob Casey Jr. this fall if he is the Democratic nominee, and if the progressive circles I travel in are any indication, there are a lot of Pennsylvanians who, while wanting desparately to send Rick Santorum packing, aren't desparate enough to vote for a candidate like Casey, who many of us consider to be Santorum's Democratic counter-part. How ironic if it ends up that head-in-the-sand Democrats end up re-electing an unpopular Rick Santorum to the United States Senate."

snip

" I will actively campaign for a write in vote for anyone else.

I'm also part of the reality based community, but my reality is long-term:  I'm willing to accept 6 more years of Santorum if I know that in the next election, particularly if Casey is defeated, that we'll get a real Democratic candidate"

snip

" will not oppose a Casey candidacy, but neither will I support it, and neither will I vote for the man.  By all means vote for him if you are so inclined, but be aware that there are a lot of like-minded progressive Democrats who are going to sit this one out if the choice is between Santorum and Casey.  You ought to respect that choice, and you ought to worry about it as well.  At the very least you should urge Casey to reach out to people like me.  So far he has made zero effort to do that. "

snip

"Re: It should be added... (none / 0)

Santorum is good for the Democrats because he is so nuts"
---------------------------------------- ---------

It's because of people like this that progressives and liberals will always be a minority in this country. I have said it on Kos and other blogs. People like these folks are the reasons why the left will NEVER have the power that the right has today.

The reason I say this is obvious. These people have 50 million reasons as to why they won't vote for Casey in the general election. But if this were just about Casey and Santorum that would be one thing. The issue runs deeper than that.

These folks just have a reason every two years as to why they can't support Democrats as the polls. Substitute Casey with another Democrat in another state who isn't running on a fringe left, out-of-the-mainstream, Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore, or Dennis Kuchinich platform; and you will get the same old "I won't vote" or "I have to vote my concsicence crap". No Democrat is ever perfect for them.

This group of "progressives" are "regressives". They have impossible litmus tests, can't be satisfied with anyone unless the candidate is running a platform that will only succeed in the dark blue precincts of the Upper East Side of Manhattan, Bevery Hills, Berkeley, or San Francisco. They will only support a candidate who is running on a platform that is viable only in districts that are 60-75% Democratic. Even if the person is running in a moderate blue, light blue, neutral, light dred, moderately red, or dark red state, they will have their "reasons" as to why they can't support the Democratic nominee.

As I have said on Kos numerous times this group of "regressives"--they aren't "progressive", since the word has progress in its root, and these people are not for progress--would rather lose than win. For some sick reason they prefer political marginalization. They take some perverse pride in it. This group of reggressives only believes in engaging in symbolic "protests" that no one hears, cares, or listens to. They would rather lose than win. They have some perverse "martyrdom complex". Actually getting into office and accomplishing something isn't important to them.

I've come to this conclusion after debating with those regressives here, at DKos, and at DU. They don't want to change. And it is unfortunate, but sometimes I think the system already has priced them in. They are that 5% on both sides that is never happy with any of the major party candidates. And frankly I think it would be dumb if Casey and other Democrats rushed after this 5% if meant alienating themselves from the other 95% of the elctorate. I say this out of frustration because nothing seems to satisfy these people beyond the unrealistic.

Frankly, over and over again, it is the same old tired arguments. I "can't vote for this Democrat" because of his vote on this or that "issue". They want to have a reason to cause a Democrat to lose. For if a Democrat actually won these folks could not self-righteous and arrogantly come to boards like this one and say that "we sent a message". What would these people do if a Democrat ACTUALLY won an election?

It boggles the mind. These folks are like small children. They would rather have someone in this seat who supports their issues 0-20% of the time (Santorum) because they can't get someone in there who supports their issues 90-100% (Pennachio). Thus they would rather punish the candidate who supports their issues 60-80% of the time (Casey) because they can't get their way. This is really stupid and illogical. I guess that they would rather regress even further because the perfect is beyond reach.

I sincerely hope--and I say this out of frustration more than anything else--that Casey wins without the support of the people I higlighted above. The same goes for other less-than-perfect Democrats running in light blue to dark red states, especially Melissa Bean. For frankly, if Casey and Bean win without them, then perhaps this group of regressives will realize that they are a fringe minority and that they are deluded about their importance. Then maybe Democrats won't be afraid of them either and no one on boards like this one will care when they whine and moan about any and all Democratic candidates who aren't Cynthia McKinney.

While I disagree, Chris, with your vote for Chuck, I at least appreciate the fact that you are supporting and will volunteer for Casey in the general election. I appreciate that you at least understand what is at stake here.

But I really have to ask you and the others this one point. Why did Chuck run for the US Senate when he HAS NEVER HELD ANY LOCAL OFFICE IN PA? Why didn't Chuck first run for something local and build up a credible record so that when the next vacancy opens up--probably in 2010 should Arlen Specter retire--he could be competetive and perhaps get support from the much-maligned "establishment" here?

Chuck is from Bucks County, correct? The county's local officeholders are all Republicans, right? Why didn't Chuck run for State Rep, State Senate, or even against Mike Fitzpatrick in PA-8? Perhaps then he could have gotten more "establishment" support and even won. Then he could have had a network of volunteers, support in the Philadelphia suburbs, and credibility. Maybe then he could have run for the US Senate.

Chuck is a joke of a candidate. He is polling in the single digits. Someone said that a few central committees were "supportive of Chuck". Maybe that is true, but keep in mind that Mike Miles won the CO Party Convention. He still lost the primary badly to Salazar two years ago. If PA really wanted Chuck he would be faring better. If most non-far-left, Centre City, normal, Philadelphia Democrats in PA were unhappy with Casey, Chuck and Sandals would be faring better. They would get more support than simply a few posters on boards like this. The truth is, when I think about it, the discontent for Casey is not as high as some of the fringe leftists here would like it to be.

I sympathize with some of Chuck's issues. I don't agree with all of Casey's views, but I would rather have him than Santorum in office. I'm not stupid and self-righteous like many of the regressives here. And having Santorum in that position for six years would cause more damage. I disagree with the poster who stated that "Santorum is good for Democrats becuase he is nuts". He is bad and will hurt many of the causes that the regressives hold so dear.

For the truth is that, six years ago, the Naderites claimed that having Bush would lead to massive "awakening of the unwashed massses." They predicted that because "things had to get worse before they get better", there would be a massive awakening among the ordinary people that would lead to a large "mea culpa", sending everyone running back to Nader and the Greens for repetence. Reality check: it's 2006 and the Greens are lucky to elect anyone beyond city council. So that argument is crap. There is never going to be this massive "proletarian" backlash that these people expect.

The far right tolerates Republicans in blue states like Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson, and Ed Simmons even though they are pro-choice. With the exception of the Club for Growth the conservative right knows that a Tom DeLay-style conservative could not win in blue states. Unlike the regressives they actually want to win.

But honestly your post is good, Chris. It's unforuntate, though, that the message will be lost on the regressives who post here. They want to find a way to cause a Democrat to lose or they would not have their mission in life.

I would prefer a moderate Democrat run for the senate seat and not a conservative one like Casey.

The comparison between Casey and Lieberman is ridiculous. Progressives in PA disagree with Casey on one issue: abortion. Meanwhile in CT, progressives disagree with Lieberman because of the millions of ways in which he's supported George W. Bush. Casey will not be a supporter of blindly continuing the Iraq war and will be a voice for accountability unilke Lieberman. Thus, I find it justifiable to run a primary challenge against someone who is Democrat in name only, and I embrace the idea of Bob Casey joining the Democrats in the senate even if he disagrees with progressives on just one important issue. I swear! Progressives talk about building a majority and then I read a post like this and I think they're arguing more for ideological purity within the Democratic party. If posts attacking our own just like this one are still going up in November I don't expect us to win back Congress.

Regarding Anne Dicker --I would also like to note that she is having a fundraiser tomorrow night (Apr 24) from 7-9 at campaign hq.  Details here.

There are a variety of reasons why that is the case, and I know that situation will never change as long as you decide to stay home and do nothing.

There will be many races on the ballot come November, so even if one can't muster the stomach to vote in the Casey-Santorum contest (should Casey be the nominee of the dem party), one could still come out and vote in other contests that have acceptable candidates!  

Personally speaking, I could never vote for Young Casey and sleep at nights, but I have other races that I need to try and make a difference in.  Yup, I'm one of those idiot, selfish progressives, but I know what I truly believe in.  Do most others here?

Lieberman=DLC, Casey=Not in the DLC

Lefties pride themselves (in general) on their being rational and reality-based as opposed to the kooks and snake oil purchasers who cheer for Bush.

(Last time I looked, polls said half of Americans believed the animals literally went in two by two. There's a lot of it about.)

So, I'm a little puzzled why we return again and again to this topic - dressed in various guises, but substantially the same.

There's room for argument at the margins; the quality of particular candidates, temporary circumstances can have an effect.

But fundamentally the question comes down to arithmetic: there is no way that the Dems can get to 218 or 50/51 without a substantial contingent of moderates in the ranks of their MCs.

And, to make those majorities more comfortable, chances are that the marginal few MCs will skew the party a little further to the right.

Unless I'm missing something, this is an iron law of politics under the US Constitution.

I'm curious how liberals might square this particular circle.

The state barley went for Kerry and had a GOP governor for 8 years and has had two GOP senators for 12 years.  I think people forget that in between Pittsburg and Philadelphia lies Alabama.  Also there are more Catholics in PA than in any other state, and a pro-life, pro-union candidate like Casey would fit the state well.

Casey is a Conservative Democrat, but he is also the most popular Democrat in the state.  As soon as he decided he wanted to be a senator, there wasn't much any 'progressive' Democrat could do to defeat him in the primary.

So-called "conservative" Democrats still are a large percentage of the party. According to the Pew Poll from a while back, they make up to 1/3 of the party.  It's not a surprise in a blue collar state with a large rural population like Pennsylvania that they would represent a fair number of Democratic voters.

Chris,

Didn't you admit to flyering for Casey in the 02 primary? Aside from abortion, doesn't Casey fall into line with the party on issues like taxes, healthcare, minimum wage, education, medicare, etc.?  If Casey was against raising the minimum wage and supported Bush's tax cuts but was pro-choice, I don't even think we would be having this discussion right now.

"I cannot imagine a situation where the Republican nominee is more progressive than the Democratic nominee"

Oh really?

Joe Lieberman was first elected by defeating a true progressive.

Sounds to me like the defeat of John Hostettler in  Indiana by a Democratic troglodyte will be a net loss to the nation whoever is speaker.

Understand your thinking, Chris, but I don't see how liberals advance anything they care about by voting for baddies.

Your analogy that the more radical rightwingers abandoning the party would push the Republicans to the left is a particularly poor one.  It is the threat of desertion that has led to some of the most regressive and oppressive legislation.

JMO.

looking at all the people posting why they can not support Casey...

When was the last time they talked to your average blue collar union member?

They might find a different position about this particular candidate.

Must every Democratic candidate support every issue groups' positions?

In "The Revolution will not be Televised" Joe Trippi sums up his political philosophy pretty succinctly: support the most progressive candidate that has a chance of winning.

Note the two parts to that philosophy, especially the second part.  And expand it to this: do whatever it takes to move progressive ideas forward.

Many of us are progressives, in large part, because we are trying to make the world a better place, particularly for the most needy in our society. Never compromising may give us a chance to pat ourselves on the back, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing, for the people we want to help.

A democratic Congressional majority composed of the most conservative elements of the party would at least perform oversight and act as check on what may be the worst and most dangerous administration in history. The most progressive Republican majority would never do that.

Of course, a Democratic majority in either chamber of Congress would not be uniformly conservative. In fact, it would put some of the most experienced liberals at the helm of extremely influential committees, where most of the work of Congress is done. John Conyers and Pat Leahy, both dependable progressive, would head up both of the Judiciary committees; John Conyers was the Congressman who demanded official hearings on the Downing Street Memo and went on to hold public hearing on the issue even without the current chairman's support.

Do we want to pass up an opportunity for progress, even if it involves compromise, in favor of a defeat that makes us feel good about our ideological purity?

I hope not.  Because if you start out asking for 100%, compromise and get 50%, you at least have more than you had before and are in a better position to fight for the rest.

Remember the people we are fighting for, and ask if they would rather we loose with dignity or help them through compromise.

Let's agree that a major reason Lieberman is in such trouble is that he does not shirk from stabbing other Democrats in the back.  Have we seen such actions from Casey?  If not, then he does deserve the support of Demcoratic Party voters.  If Lieberman just stopped showing on on Fox News and smearing other Democrats, he could probably fix 80% of his problem. He can't bring himself to do that, so his own hubris is what will bring him down.  His and his staff's call for "civil" discussion is merely a smokescreen to avoid suffering the attacks he's inflicted on other party memmbers for the last ten years.  You should just watch his staffers squeal like stuck pigs when they get called on this.

I don't demand that another member of my party agree with me 100% on issues.  I do demand that they will not smear another member of the party publicly.  

In Pennsylvania in 2004, the Democrats ran a true progressive candidate, Joe Hoeffel, for senate against Arlen Specter. In fact, Ed Rendell helped clear the primary field for him by asking Charlie Crystle to drop out. Where was the support from the same progressive community that is now complaining about Bob Casey for Hoeffel? I volunteered at Hoeffel's Phila HQ and I can tell you we were still stuffing and sending fundraising letters up until about the last week before the election - that's how short of cash Hoeffel was. Where was the netroots support?

Specter was vulnerable in 2004. He faced a very tough primary against Pat Toomey and had to run right into the arms of Bush and Santorum. Did this energize progressives to flock to help Hoeffel? I sure didn't see it.

I read a lot of posts criticizing Casey for SAYING
he'd've voted for Alito, but Specter, as the Judiciary Cmte chairman, ACTUALLY steered both Roberts and Alito through the nomination process
and voted for each man. Not to mention how Specter
lead the attack on Anita Hill that ultimately got
Clarence Thomas a seat on the court. But evidently
that is ok because Specter's "pro-choice". A good chance to replace a GOP lackey, Specter, with a
true liberal was blown.

Further, do you know we have a true progressive
running for LtGov, Valerie McDonald Roberts, against the conservative Dem incumbent, Catherine
Baker Knoll? Want to support a progressive, here's your chance.

I don't like Casey very much. I don't like him because he's pro choice, because he refuses to clearly delineate where he would be on a policy preferring safe generalizations, and I also don't like him because is yet another rich elite who is trying to tell me he knows how to represent everyday working people while taking money from many of the same special interest groups that fund Rick Santorum.

However, if Chuck Pennacchio doesn't win the Primary I will vote for Casey over Santorum. A diseased three-legged dog would vote better than Rick. And I would vote for that dog if it could beat him.

The real leverage here comes from Campaigns like Lamont.. If leiberman can be picked off for his aggressive conservatism in Dem clothes, the chances of Democrats like Casey toeing the party line on issues increases exponentially in my opinion.